[Work] GRE argument #225
ARGUMENT225 - The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a
local newspaper.
"During her three years in office, Governor Riedeburg has shown herself to be
a worthy leader. Since she took office, crime has decreased, the number of
jobs created per year has doubled, and the number of people choosing to live
in our state has increased. These trends are likely to continue if she is
reelected. In addition, Ms. Riedeburg has promised to take steps to keep big
companies here, thereby providing jobs for any new residents. Anyone who
looks at Ms. Riedeburg's record can tell that she is the best-qualified
candidate for governor."
The speaker asserts that Riedeburg is the best-qualified candidate for
governor because after she took office, crime decreased, more jobs are
available, and more people wanted to live in the state. To continue the
trends, people should vote her. I find this statement problematic.
First, specific numbers are needed to prove she is worthy. The speaker
claims that the crime has decreased. However, we have no idea about what the
real number is. It could be quite few and cannot be seen as evidence showing
she is capable of managing the state. Similarly, we need to know the number
of people who choose to live in the state after Riedeburg was elected. Also,
the speaker has to demonstrate how many job there was, and the number after
doubling. Otherwise, we cannot affirm the validity of the record.
Second, there might be some factors determining the changes in the state
which were not mentioned by the speaker. If we look closely at the statement,
we may doubt that crime has decreased because the police chooses not to
propose the real information. Number of people may choose to live in the
state because there are terrible disasters happening in other states,
therefore it is actually refugees that move in. The kinds of job which have
increased may be the blue-collar ones. The fact could be that the factories,
alone with lower payment and more pollutions move in and businesses turn
down. Instead of gaining the benefits, the state suffered.
Third, Riedeburg has promised to keep big companies and providing jobs
for the newcomers. I think the policy could bring harms to the state. We do
not know what the big companies are, but they could heavily polluted the
environment and replace the companies which are already existing there. In
this way, the economy may be damaged because of the big companies. If that
comes true, and she wants to provide the jobs for any new residents, then the
local residents may loss their job and are forced to move out of the state.
In sum, the statement is not as convincing as it stands. The speaker
needs to provide more information and take more factors and possible effects
into consideration.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.166.245.83
ST-English 近期熱門文章
PTT職涯區 即時熱門文章
